Compared with Dubya, exactly what he has been doing has done much less damage. Anyone touting deregulation, lowering taxes on the wealthy and slashing social programs needs to explain why they want to repeat what Dubya and Reagan both did (exactly those things!) which lead to unprecedented government deficits during their time in office (Dubya took us from a friggin BUDGET SURPLUS from Clinton's final years to a runaway massive deficit culminating in 2009, the last budget passed [in 2008] while he was in office).

The massive deregulation under Dubya is responsible for the toppling of banks and their huge repercussions in just about every sector of the U.S. economy, letting banks increase their debt to asset ratio by the Bush/Republican congress lockstep in undoing the safeguards put in place following the Great Depression when the exact same thing happened.

The obscene and growing wealth of the few is on the backs of the poor. "Trickle down" is a sick joke that has never worked. When the economy is in the ditch and unemployment rampant, that's the exact time the government must relax its borrowing and use its massive borrowing capacity to keep the people afloat (the -people-, not the -corporations- and the already wealthy elite). The "private sector" has no interest besides lip service/PR for the well being of the people of the U.S., and this is proven by the surges of the working poor submerged below the poverty line whilst the very tiny uberminority squeeze more and more wealth out of the poor, and increasingly more and more from the even worse oppressed people of China including profiting off forced, unpaid labor in laogai camps. We're back to slavery in the 21st century thanks to 'globalization' allowing American corporations and investors to profit off forced, unpaid labor in foreign countries like China which not only allow it but embrace it.

Collapsing the wealth pyramid is the signature of every progressive politician, republican or democrat. Although assuredly it leads to a happier lower class, I still am not convinced this leads to better overall prosperity as a nation.

At 3/28/2011 1:04:56 PM, PervRat wrote:Compared with Dubya, exactly what he has been doing has done much less damage. Anyone touting deregulation, lowering taxes on the wealthy and slashing social programs needs to explain why they want to repeat what Dubya and Reagan both did (exactly those things!) which lead to unprecedented government deficits during their time in office (Dubya took us from a friggin BUDGET SURPLUS from Clinton's final years to a runaway massive deficit culminating in 2009, the last budget passed [in 2008] while he was in office).

The massive deregulation under Dubya is responsible for the toppling of banks and their huge repercussions in just about every sector of the U.S. economy, letting banks increase their debt to asset ratio by the Bush/Republican congress lockstep in undoing the safeguards put in place following the Great Depression when the exact same thing happened.

The obscene and growing wealth of the few is on the backs of the poor. "Trickle down" is a sick joke that has never worked. When the economy is in the ditch and unemployment rampant, that's the exact time the government must relax its borrowing and use its massive borrowing capacity to keep the people afloat (the -people-, not the -corporations- and the already wealthy elite). The "private sector" has no interest besides lip service/PR for the well being of the people of the U.S., and this is proven by the surges of the working poor submerged below the poverty line whilst the very tiny uberminority squeeze more and more wealth out of the poor, and increasingly more and more from the even worse oppressed people of China including profiting off forced, unpaid labor in laogai camps. We're back to slavery in the 21st century thanks to 'globalization' allowing American corporations and investors to profit off forced, unpaid labor in foreign countries like China which not only allow it but embrace it.

First off, just because "Dubya" cut regulations and it didn't go well, does not mean that every single regulation is needed. Many are not needed, and it is a good idea to remove or improve (I'm infavor of the later) those regulations which are not living up to expectations. The same goes with taxes, some taxes should be lowered, some raised, things should not be clumped together, but viewed independently and weighed on their own merit.

Personally, I'd love to see congress get the balls to work for 2 straight weeks, sunrise to several hours past sunset and go through each program, each tax, and each regulation, individually and decided what should be done with each, with no vote buying of "if you vote for this, I'll vote for that" or "if you toss $500,000,000 to my state for corn, I'll vote for that tax cut." Look at each individual thing and vote on each individual thing.

As far as keeping the "corporations" afloat as a bad thing, just remember that if a corporation fails, then everyone in that corporation becomes jobless. And I have a hunch that the people that were making $20 million a year, might have enough saved up that they'll be okay if things take a dive, while the floor workers will not.

As I said in a different thread, I hate the idea of "too big to fail" and I believe that said companies should be split up into small companies that can compete against each other and that individual ones are small enough that they can fail.

I also feel that until companies are lowered out of the category of "too big to fail" then if a bailout is needed, I would bite my lip and sign the check (as a loan to be paid back), but I would also provide funds to start up competing companies by individuals that show to have solid business plans and just need funding, so that more competition can take place.

At 3/28/2011 10:34:55 AM, flames wrote:what do you think obama could of done differently

Implement communism.

Yeah, not happening. America is built on democracy, not government slavery.The idea that I should have the EXACT same possessions as my next door neighbor is messed up

That's also not communism.

Separate is not equal. ^_^

I've never been big on absolute equality. I don't think anyone really has. When most people speak about eaqulity, they are talking about specific situations where they want equality.

I don't think along this plane at all. These are ends; I think in terms of means. Equal means produces equal ends without the necessity for bureaucratic measures. One should always start with the general and move to the specific, after all.

IOWs, instead of waiting until the end and counting everything and then saying "hmm, things are not equal, lets enact law x, tax y, or subsidy z," let's start off thinking about what our interests are and and set up our economic system from there.

To take it a step further, I would think our interests ought to be along the lines of sustainability; we should approach economics from a scientific perspective instead of the outright anti-scientific approach we currently employ.

At 3/28/2011 1:11:53 PM, Greyparrot wrote:Collapsing the wealth pyramid is the signature of every progressive politician, republican or democrat. Although assuredly it leads to a happier lower class, I still am not convinced this leads to better overall prosperity as a nation.

Depending on how you view "overall prosperity", one could argue that it easily does.

A person that has $50 million in their bank account is going to view the value of $1,000 much less then someone that is struggling to pay bills. So by taking that $1,000 from the rich and giving it to the poor, you increase the actual value that the money has for its owner.

Also, if we look at the effect on the economy.

A single person making $10,000,000 a year, or 100 people making $100,000 a year. Which creates more demand for goods, and so more jobs for others? The single person may buy multiple cars and even some high end luxury cars, but the 100 people are going to create greater overall demand for cars (as each would likely be getting a car, many may get 2, if they have a family).

Same can be said for the demand of food (from a grocery), or food (as in going out to eat), for TVs, for houses, for many other goods.

At 3/28/2011 1:11:53 PM, Greyparrot wrote:Collapsing the wealth pyramid is the signature of every progressive politician, republican or democrat. Although assuredly it leads to a happier lower class, I still am not convinced this leads to better overall prosperity as a nation.

At 3/28/2011 1:19:45 PM, Greyparrot wrote:Too big to fail is a political excuse to do the wrong thing. Nobody is above the law of nature.

No, it means (at least to me). We have too options, either give out X tax dollars, or let Y people become unemployed (which will cost money in unemployment and lost tax revenue) and the cost of letting all those go to unemployment and loss of tax revenue is greater than the cost of the bailout.

At 3/28/2011 1:11:53 PM, Greyparrot wrote:Collapsing the wealth pyramid is the signature of every progressive politician, republican or democrat. Although assuredly it leads to a happier lower class, I still am not convinced this leads to better overall prosperity as a nation.

Depending on how you view "overall prosperity", one could argue that it easily does.

inb4 me DX

A person that has $50 million in their bank account is going to view the value of $1,000 much less then someone that is struggling to pay bills. So by taking that $1,000 from the rich and giving it to the poor, you increase the actual value that the money has for its owner.

I usually just point out the ends of the wasting from the rich (e.g., fleets of cars, private golf courses) which show how our resources are being dumped in the toilet, but this is a good theoretical approach.

Also, if we look at the effect on the economy.

A single person making $10,000,000 a year, or 100 people making $100,000 a year. Which creates more demand for goods, and so more jobs for others? The single person may buy multiple cars and even some high end luxury cars, but the 100 people are going to create greater overall demand for cars (as each would likely be getting a car, many may get 2, if they have a family).

Same can be said for the demand of food (from a grocery), or food (as in going out to eat), for TVs, for houses, for many other goods.

Equating 'increasing consumption' with 'positive result' is a problematic approach for me, but most politicians and economists will heed that logic. I'd imagine they'd retort with something about how the rich actually use most of their wealth to invest (they are broke just like us, after all) in projects that help everyone. A skilled right-winger would have many examples ready of projects the rich invest in, scientific inventions they were behind, etc.

Playing that stupid game is behind me. Democrats and Republicans are both wrong because their system of beliefs is wrong.

At 3/28/2011 1:19:45 PM, Greyparrot wrote:Too big to fail is a political excuse to do the wrong thing. Nobody is above the law of nature.

No, it means (at least to me). We have too options, either give out X tax dollars, or let Y people become unemployed (which will cost money in unemployment and lost tax revenue) and the cost of letting all those go to unemployment and loss of tax revenue is greater than the cost of the bailout.

The real question is this, is it more important for society as a whole to be employed making a useless product, or to be unemployed and have the opportunity to do something the public deems useful?

If you are an abused housewife, is it more important that you stay willingly in a useless marriage, or to have a divorce forced upon you and have an opportunity for something greater?

At 3/28/2011 1:19:45 PM, Greyparrot wrote:Too big to fail is a political excuse to do the wrong thing. Nobody is above the law of nature.

No, it means (at least to me). We have too options, either give out X tax dollars, or let Y people become unemployed (which will cost money in unemployment and lost tax revenue) and the cost of letting all those go to unemployment and loss of tax revenue is greater than the cost of the bailout.

Ya we could just bite the bullet now and take our lumps where they need to happen, or we can prop up a failed bank because we don't want to see y people become unemployed. Which one is a better long term solution? which one would politicians opt for in a desperate attempt to make a much needed recession less severe than it needs to be, despite long term problems it may cause.

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

At 3/28/2011 1:19:45 PM, Greyparrot wrote:Too big to fail is a political excuse to do the wrong thing. Nobody is above the law of nature.

No, it means (at least to me). We have too options, either give out X tax dollars, or let Y people become unemployed (which will cost money in unemployment and lost tax revenue) and the cost of letting all those go to unemployment and loss of tax revenue is greater than the cost of the bailout.

The real question is this, is it more important for society as a whole to be employed making a useless product, or to be unemployed and have the opportunity to do something the public deems useful?

Since capital is required to pay your bills and survive, being in a meaningless job is better for an individual than starving to death on the streets. Plus, if other companies rise (as I suggested we should fund), that provides opportunities for employees to change jobs to make something the public deems useful.

Being unemployed does not create opportunities.

If you are an abused housewife, is it more important that you stay willingly in a useless marriage, or to have a divorce forced upon you and have an opportunity for something greater?

It is more important to be able to choose when to have a divorce, not have it forced upon you. Since what one person sees as a crappy marriage, others may not (note how some people on this site have suggested that marriage in general is a stupid idea).

Being employed or married in itself is not necessarily a good thing.

being employed isn't, bringing in a paycheck to keep yourself alive is. And I, personally, view that it is better to get that paycheck making a not ideal product (no product is "useless," except for crocs, I hate them with a passion), then to get nothing for making nothing.

At 3/28/2011 1:19:45 PM, Greyparrot wrote:Too big to fail is a political excuse to do the wrong thing. Nobody is above the law of nature.

No, it means (at least to me). We have two options, either give out X tax dollars, or let Y people become unemployed (which will cost money in unemployment and lost tax revenue) and the cost of letting all those go to unemployment and loss of tax revenue is greater than the cost of the bailout.

Ya we could just bite the bullet now and take our lumps where they need to happen, or we can prop up a failed bank because we don't want to see y people become unemployed. Which one is a better long term solution? which one would politicians opt for in a desperate attempt to make a much needed recession less severe than it needs to be, despite long term problems it may cause.

Well, obviously, while proping up the failed business (not necessarily a bank), we would require changes. Part of the reason that GM and other companies did so poorly is because they were not adjusting to the market (they kept pumping out trucks and SUVs, while the demand was for more fuel efficient cars, that Honda and Toyota were making). So we keep them up, make them adjust to the market so that they can get back on their feet, and let them go again.

Since capital is required to pay your bills and survive, being in a meaningless job is better for an individual than starving to death on the streets. Plus, if other companies rise (as I suggested we should fund), that provides opportunities for employees to change jobs to make something the public deems useful.

(no product is "useless," except for crocs, I hate them with a passion), then to get nothing for making nothing.

The best way for other new companies to rise is for there to be a void in the consumer market. Companies satisfy a need.Old Subsidized Companies continue to satisfy that need at taxpayer expense. Get rid of them.

At 3/28/2011 10:34:55 AM, flames wrote:what do you think obama could of done differently

Implement communism.

Yeah, not happening. America is built on democracy, not government slavery.The idea that I should have the EXACT same possessions as my next door neighbor is messed up

That's also not communism.

Separate is not equal. ^_^

I've never been big on absolute equality. I don't think anyone really has. When most people speak about eaqulity, they are talking about specific situations where they want equality.

I don't think along this plane at all. These are ends; I think in terms of means. Equal means produces equal ends without the necessity for bureaucratic measures. One should always start with the general and move to the specific, after all.

IOWs, instead of waiting until the end and counting everything and then saying "hmm, things are not equal, lets enact law x, tax y, or subsidy z," let's start off thinking about what our interests are and and set up our economic system from there.

To take it a step further, I would think our interests ought to be along the lines of sustainability; we should approach economics from a scientific perspective instead of the outright anti-scientific approach we currently employ.

We should approach economics with an economics perspective, not a scientific perspective.To claim that either Keynesian or Austrian or any other is outright anti-scientific is simply ignorant.

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

At 3/28/2011 1:19:45 PM, Greyparrot wrote:Too big to fail is a political excuse to do the wrong thing. Nobody is above the law of nature.

No, it means (at least to me). We have two options, either give out X tax dollars, or let Y people become unemployed (which will cost money in unemployment and lost tax revenue) and the cost of letting all those go to unemployment and loss of tax revenue is greater than the cost of the bailout.

Ya we could just bite the bullet now and take our lumps where they need to happen, or we can prop up a failed bank because we don't want to see y people become unemployed. Which one is a better long term solution? which one would politicians opt for in a desperate attempt to make a much needed recession less severe than it needs to be, despite long term problems it may cause.

Well, obviously, while proping up the failed business (not necessarily a bank), we would require changes. Part of the reason that GM and other companies did so poorly is because they were not adjusting to the market (they kept pumping out trucks and SUVs, while the demand was for more fuel efficient cars, that Honda and Toyota were making). So we keep them up, make them adjust to the market so that they can get back on their feet, and let them go again.

Thats not how the system is supposed to work. You can have your sob stories of all the business' that have gone under and all the people that have lost their jobs but none of those stories justify their bail-out or propping up in order to "adjust to the market" or whatever reason they failed in the first place.

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

Since capital is required to pay your bills and survive, being in a meaningless job is better for an individual than starving to death on the streets. Plus, if other companies rise (as I suggested we should fund), that provides opportunities for employees to change jobs to make something the public deems useful.

(no product is "useless," except for crocs, I hate them with a passion), then to get nothing for making nothing.

The best way for other new companies to rise is for there to be a void in the consumer market. Companies satisfy a need.Old Subsidized Companies continue to satisfy that need at taxpayer expense. Get rid of them.

Many companies cost a lot of capital to get started (like an automobile manufacturing, or airplane manufacturing). So even if you have a good idea, that would work, that doesn't mean that you can just start it up without the capital. So you need 3 things.

1) A void in the market (an unmet demand)2) An idea/product to fill that void3) the Resources to impliment it.

Since the government benefits from having companies fill voids (by employing people and generating taxes), I see it as benefitial for the government to promote new companies and as a worthwhile investment.

Since the government would be making money from tax revenue on new companies, they can offer lower interest rates than banks, thus making it even easier for people with ideas to start up.

The big reason I have more faith in market adjustments with a CEO over your local Senator, is that (a good) CEO employs marketers to do daily surveys about what the people want. A Senator does this about.. um.. say every SIX YEARS. Please trash the subsidized companies, it's so much better for society as a whole.

Since the government benefits from having companies fill voids (by employing people and generating taxes), I see it as benefitial for the government to promote new companies and as a worthwhile investment.

Since the government would be making money from tax revenue on new companies, they can offer lower interest rates than banks, thus making it even easier for people with ideas to start up.

A great way for the government to promote this is to de-regulate how the government dictates who should or should not get loans.

At 3/28/2011 1:19:45 PM, Greyparrot wrote:Too big to fail is a political excuse to do the wrong thing. Nobody is above the law of nature.

No, it means (at least to me). We have two options, either give out X tax dollars, or let Y people become unemployed (which will cost money in unemployment and lost tax revenue) and the cost of letting all those go to unemployment and loss of tax revenue is greater than the cost of the bailout.

Ya we could just bite the bullet now and take our lumps where they need to happen, or we can prop up a failed bank because we don't want to see y people become unemployed. Which one is a better long term solution? which one would politicians opt for in a desperate attempt to make a much needed recession less severe than it needs to be, despite long term problems it may cause.

Well, obviously, while proping up the failed business (not necessarily a bank), we would require changes. Part of the reason that GM and other companies did so poorly is because they were not adjusting to the market (they kept pumping out trucks and SUVs, while the demand was for more fuel efficient cars, that Honda and Toyota were making). So we keep them up, make them adjust to the market so that they can get back on their feet, and let them go again.

Thats not how the system is supposed to work. You can have your sob stories of all the business' that have gone under and all the people that have lost their jobs but none of those stories justify their bail-out or propping up in order to "adjust to the market" or whatever reason they failed in the first place.

So? So what if that is not how it is "suppose to work"? The goal of the government (in my eyes) is to do its best to ensure that its people can live in prosperity. That means doing what it can to have large economy and meaningful jobs so that its people can produce things and have things that increase their prosperity.

If propping up a company for a few years to get it back on course is better for the economy then allowing said company to fail and waiting for a new company to rise from the ashes, then so be it.